The point is there WAS a vote. A democratic vote. I'm looking at it from the outside and don't care either way - except that the way some very vocal ones of the so-called "remainers" dislike democracy and voting as soon as they don't get what they want disgusts me. Remember your attitude when some day - inevitably - it will be the other way around, you won a vote and the other side comes up with the same arguments.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation.
Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
However the majority of the people who voted (and remember here that the turnout was higher than most UK elections) voted to exit which clearly included border controls.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign, so unless you were watching some other referendum campaign the suggestion that border control had nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best.
> it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?
I note that I'm afraid you didn't even attempt to answer my extremely straightforward question.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
Soft brexit (i.e. EEA-like access) plus spend the next 10 years figuring out a better exit deal would have been an option.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
I entirely agree the 2 year timeline is massively unrealistic (downside to something being written in a treaty agreement with no intention of it ever being excercised)
The challenge for me is that soft-brexit is basically no brexit 'cause EEA access == sign-up to the four fundamental freedoms and accept the primacy of EU law, which seems to cover most of the things that the leave campaign wanted to get rid of.
As you say this could well be a negotiating tactic though, and no-one will really know until they start the negotiations. I think it's entirely possible that once the details are fleshed out people might seek to change it.
Soft brexit would only be a transitional state, with a set timeline or undefined. The hard brexiters would grumble at the former and be completley against the latter though.
Is it the same article that claims that the leave campaign also promised access to the single market and that reports that the foreign secretary declared that 'the leave campaign had made “contradictory” and “mutually incompatible” promises to the British people'?
Maybe you've misunderstood how democracy works with a dictatorship. Just because your "side" lost the vote does not mean you cave in and blindly follow down a blind alley.
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
Maybe you've misunderstood how democracy works with a dictatorship. Just because your "side" lost the vote does not mean you cave in and blindly follow down a blind alley
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
When the vote is as close add it was, there is no high ground. It's a win/loss by a tiny majority. If remain had won I would like to think that people would have had enough sense to know that almost half the population is disgruntled and done something to make them happier instead of throwing insults everytime "they complained".
Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
On the leadership of the party I concede, strictly, your point. We don't vote for a PM, although clearly people knew who they were voting to be the PM.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
You can twist and turn it any way you like, there WAS a vote, it was democratic, and you just keep complaining and whining about democracy when you don't like the outcome.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
If that is so go to the courts. Otherwise whatever you say is just an empty bag of hot air.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Why do you have to take such a tone? Can we not disagree and argue without adhominem attacks?
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
